i dont mean to be sexist but other countiers around th world and esspecially in the middle east concider women weak. if she was the president, she'd be our leader and they would think we were weak. maybe not idn. maybe the oppise would happen and they might change thier ways and allow women rigts.
whats ur opinion
2007-01-24 14:05:14 · 8 answers · asked by genius 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
It has nothing to do with her (questionable) gender. I wouldn't vote for her because she's a criminal and would be the worst president in our long history.
2007-01-24 14:25:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would vote for a woman for president, just not Hillary.
savings and loan scandels
travel office scandels (when she was first lady)
real estate scandels
she doesn't work and play well with others (esp. underlings at the office
lack of moral backbone (is she for the war or not, look at her voting record and her press record for the last several years, not just the last two weeks.)
as a canidate she is damaged goods. The Democrats (and the Republicans for that matter) need to stop running canidates that are bad news. Bush would have lost to a strong canidate in 2000, but the Democrats ran Gore. in 2004 if the Democrats wanted the White House they should have run a canidate that could stay consistent on an issue other the abortion for more then a month. I might not like what Bush does, but at least you can depend on him to do what he thinks is right
2007-01-25 13:16:35 · answer #2 · answered by barry 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Other countries, including countries in the Middle East had no problems dealing with Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi - and in Indira Gandhi's case that was back in the 60's and 70's. Right now there are 47 women heads of state in the world. The rest of the world is not the problem. It is our own culture that fears what most of the world has already figured out, that women make fine leaders of nations. Yes, I support Hillary Clinton. I intend to work on her campaign with all of my free time.
2007-01-25 02:48:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meyer were never considered weak. The Middle East would not be sure what to expect from a Hilary Clinton. One thing is for sure though is that it definitely would not change the mind of those in the Middle East. To them it would be further evidence of our decadence and the weakness of the American men who ALLOWED a woman to usurp male power.
I would not vote for Hilary though.
2007-01-24 22:15:06 · answer #4 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton, and it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. I would love to see a woman in the White House, and if Condoleeza Rice were running, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. She is capable, intelligent, has the integrity and the leadership qualities necessary to the position. If she should ever run, it would be for the right reasons.
In regard to Hillary Clinton, she scares me. She is driven by one self centered goal, and that is to be President. Money and power would be her reward for sacrificing her integrity, pride and self respect to attain it. What she could do for this country after she got there is beyond my comprehension. Nevertheless, she WILL do whatever she has to do, to whomever she has to, to clear the path.
Read the books that are out there on her and Bill, surf the net, find out who and what she is. I assure you, you won't be bored.
Oh yeah, as for the leaders of the Middle East? I would bet that they already know more about who she really is than most Americans. And if she gets elected, I would be more concerned about them thinking us stupid, than weak.
Regarding the above, which I wrote last night, "Hillary will do whatever she has to do, to whomever she has to, to clear her path to the White House". This evening when I turned on the news, I hear that "someone" has started a smear campaign against Barrak Obama. He seems to be a good, decent person, and I am sorry he had to explain it. Thist reaks with the scent of Hillary, who, of course, will deny it.
2007-01-24 23:41:27 · answer #5 · answered by bella 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ron Paul is the only possible candidate worth voting for. He is the only anti-war candidate. He is against the illegal income tax. And he wants to put an end to the rising police state. And also he is against gun control because he realizes if citizens don't have guns the government WILL take over completely.
2007-01-24 22:10:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would vote for a woman and a black man.
A good leader comes in many forms.
2007-01-24 22:13:40 · answer #7 · answered by Denise W 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I will not only vote for her I intend to campaign for her.
2007-01-24 22:12:57 · answer #8 · answered by pinkrosegreeneyes bluerose 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋